• John Richard
    link
    -14
    edit-2
    7 months ago

    Medical examiners determined that it wasn’t blunt force trauma, so now the only other explanation was pepper spray… so, do you really think pepper spray is what killed him? Or do you think that there were a lot of officers there, and people die daily, and he happened to die after the events but that weren’t directly connected or there was no evidence of a connection? Is it possible you want him to have died because of Jan 6 events so that you can point your finger and say look how evil those Jan 6 people were?

    • @Ensign_Crab
      link
      English
      47 months ago

      Multiple cops were beaten that day. Do you suppose the insurrectionists were holding back? They were obviously trying to kill police, on camera. We all saw what happened. You’re making excuses for them. You’re whatabouting for them.

      • John Richard
        link
        -67 months ago

        No I’m not. I don’t disagree some of them were there for that purpose. If they had a gun, plans, texts, etc that shows that was their intention to basically harm those certifying the election then sure charge them with the federal law the article is talking about. But just cause they went into the Capitol building doesn’t mean they all had the same intentions.

        • @Ensign_Crab
          link
          English
          37 months ago

          But just cause they went into the Capitol building doesn’t mean they all had the same intentions.

          Normal tourist visit, huh?

          • John Richard
            link
            -37 months ago

            That’s not how prosecution and evidence works. You can’t just say cause they entered the Capitol building that they were all their to hang Pence, or kill Pelosi. You need actual evidence. Otherwise, what will happen is that you’ll go to a peaceful protest and some agitator will do some crime and suddenly you’ll be getting arrested saying you were there for the same purpose.

            • @Ensign_Crab
              link
              English
              17 months ago

              Yeah, the way it works is that a bunch of inbred hayseeds try to install Trump as dictator, and because you wish they had succeeded, you downplay what they did and pretend that the Supreme Court still has legitimacy.

              • John Richard
                link
                -27 months ago

                The Supreme Court hasn’t had much legitimacy for much longer than you realize. They’ve been taking away consumer and workers rights for decades. You just haven’t realized it until recently when it has become a hot topic and now it is easier to blame Republicans, but overlook everything else.

                • @Ensign_Crab
                  link
                  English
                  17 months ago

                  You just haven’t realized it until recently when it has become a hot topic and now it is easier to blame Republicans, but overlook everything else.

                  They’ve been more shameless about it. As in this case, where they’re pretending that obstructing a government proceeding applies only to documents, and where you’re pretending that anything other than ignoring the statute entirely requires enshrining guilt by association into law.

                  • John Richard
                    link
                    -27 months ago

                    I’m not sure how or whether you gather that they are pretending that obstructing a government proceeding only applies to documents, but that isn’t what I gathered at all. I made two major points…

                    1. That if they didn’t question the law, then it would likely apply to Jamaal Bowman and other protests (many of those by Democrat activists)
                    2. That doing so was dangerous as it sets a basis for charging everyone with the same crime regardless of evidence of their actual intended purpose.